Posted on 10/01/2006 3:44:15 PM PDT by calcowgirl
Thomasson: “There is now no difference in California law between marriage rights for a husband and wife and marriage rights for homosexuals.”
Sept. 30 -- Campaign for Children and Families, a California-based pro-family organization defending marriage, children, and family values, is appalled that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed a bill putting the last nail in the coffin for marriage between a man and a woman in California.
On Sept. 30, the last day to sign or veto bills on his desk, Gov. Schwarzenegger signed SB 1827 by lesbian state Senator Carole Migden, a San Francisco Democrat. SB 1827 requires the state tax laws to award marriage status to homosexual couples. Specifically, the bill requires registered “domestic partners” to file personal income tax returns as either “married filing joint” or “married filing separate.” This is in direct violation of federal law which recognizes marriage as only between a man and a woman.
On Sept. 28 in the San Jose Mercury News, Migden openly admitted that SB 1827 is the last right of marriage taken by homosexual activists. “This is the final piece – and I’m proud of it,” she said.
“Shame on Arnold Schwarzenegger for attacking marriage between a husband and wife, and for being two-faced about this sacred institution,” said Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families. “SB 1827 equates a wife with a homosexual, which makes no sense at all. How dare the Governor turn marriage inside out and upside down. Where’s his respect for marriage? Where’s Schwarzenegger’s respect for California voters who demanded that marriage rights be protected for a man and a woman?”
“Marriage is no longer esteemed in California law,” said Thomasson. “Schwarzenegger and the Democrat-controlled Legislature have conspired to create counterfeit marriage or ‘gay marriage by another name,’ and jam their social engineering upon every community for every child to see. There is now no difference in California law between marriage rights for a husband and wife and marriage rights for homosexuals.”
The California State Franchise Tax Board estimates SB 1827 will cost the State as much as $10 million per year. In 2000, 61.4 percent of California voters supported Proposition 22, to protect marriage for a man and a woman. SB 1827 is the law in only one other state, Massachusetts, where homosexual “marriages” are legal.
If there is no difference why get married at all?
If i shared a house or apartment with my brother could I claim I was married then?
For a status on the signing/vetoes of California legislation sponsored and or supported by the GLBT lobby, see:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1711408/posts
This from the man who coined the term "GirlyMan."
I guess the corollory is ManlyGirl...
If a GirlyMan marries a ManlyGirl, is it marriage?
YES because one is a female and one is a male.
I mean come on, anything else you can call marriage, but it ain't, it is state recognized and sponsered perversion.
Yes....or your cousin.....or your uncle.......or your aunt....or anybody.
Are you getting the picture yet? The whole point is to devalue marriage, period. If it means everything and anything, it means nothing.
Anyway, not even Arnold can "terminate" marriage. It's a creature of the Church. Civil government merely recognizes and protects it or....it fails to. But it cannot create or destroy it.
calcowgirl, I don't like this law, but I'll go a step further and state that I do not like laws, including socialist based tax laws that are written on the back of the religious institution of marriage. Now more than ever I believe government must be taken out of marriage, including civil marriage, and the institution returned to the churches as it was when our nation was founded.
On Sept. 28, Migden openly lied ('This is the final piece...')
This is a blatant lie, for when it comes to such activism, there is never a "final piece". A general rule of thumb is that activists are never satisfied. If they have to (and they will), they will manufacture grievances where none exist, just in order to keep them donation dollars rolling in...
"Final piece"? No. This is just the beginning...
thought that term was from a SNL Hans and Franz skit..
I think I read that in one of the states (I can't remember which one) the requirement for 'domestic partner' benefits was a partner of the same sex. That means that a man and a woman living together cannot get 'domestic partner' benefits. The GLBT activists are winning the legal fight but not the moral fight.
And why is anyone surprised? This is Governor Kennedy-in-law.
The media aids and abets their liberal allies so they usually will not report on some of their more deceptive victories, instead celebrating beyond the eyes of the readers. They broadcast headlines last year about the gay marriage veto, completely ignoring that the homosexual lobby advanced no fewer than six pro-GLBT bills the same day (including a Civil Rights act, special property tax privileges, and extending public pension benefits to homosexual domestic partners).
If we the people define in our Constitution the laws of marriage is only between a man and a women (prop 22) then government cannot pass any laws - as they would be un-constitutional.
Whether anyone likes this bill or does not, there really is only one strategy which will prevail at the end of day, which is to raise your children, and have a lot of them, with strong conservative, judeo christian values, and make sure they vote.
Yes. Simply register as "domestic partners" then have at it.
Even better - when you are old and about to kick the bucket, to avoid ALL inheritance taxes go fill out a domestic partnership form with whomever you want to get your estate **tax free** when you die.
One can only hope that the Feds will fix this travesty...
I believe that's exactly what happened.
It's almost like an Orwell moment - I have to ask myself, "didn't I just read that he vetoed the whole thing?" Headlines are the enemy.
Good point. This is all part of an agenda to make marriage meaningless. The Russian Communist experiment of the late 1930s tried to do this to the major institutions such as the family. They had to backtrack because of the chaos it created.
The government does belong in marriage, because marriage is not simply a religious institution. It is the building block of society, and is in the government's best interest to protect.
Marriage is the ideal environment to raise children. It provides a stable emotion and financial basis where the future citizens are raised. Remove marriage and the state's financial burden increases and the welfare state grows. Remove marriage and the children clearly are at a disadvantage and are much more likely to create problems for the state down the road, while costing them enormous amounts of money before they are even born.
The tax credits given to married people, especially those raising children, is the state's way of encouraging people to raise their own children, not the government. It has nothing to do with religion, it has everything to do with what is in the state's best interest. Allowing anybody and everybody to enjoy the same benefits regardless of their marital status reduces the emphasis on the importance of marriage in secular society. And as marriage declines, we all end up paying the price.
"Now more than ever I believe government must be taken out of marriage, including civil marriage, and the institution returned to the churches as it was when our nation was founded."
Its a fallacy that church was not in our governments foundation. Roughly 1/3 of the men involved were ministers. Many of the early settlers came her so they could be Christian.
Destroy marriage and you destroy family. Destroy family and you destroy America.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.